Earth Day

[speaker]

http://www.retscreen.net/ang/g_passiv.php

http://www.newenergy.org/sesci/publication...ts/passive.html

http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.asp?CaId=5&PgId=303

It's good to meet someone who examines the issues before mouthing off with irrelevant red herrings. Now if we could only get some of the others to quit mouthing off who do so without thinking at all.

You do realize, of course, that solar energy at its present stage of development can probably supply about 5% of this nation's energy needs once it gets ramped up with billions of dollars injected into it? And that wind energy, after decimating the bird population, might supply another 5%? That of course doesn't take into consideration all the dirty ooey icky energy it takes to make the actual impliments, but hey, it'll make the folks who put out $100,000 or so feel really spiffy about doing their part to combat a fabricated issue.

ScottSA, I hope you will tell me what you understand to be solar energy, It is my impression that at present solar energy provides about a third of our residential energy. The references I suggested indicate technology that in my view should bring that up to two thirds, without any significant outlay of r and d money.

If on the other hand if you haven't bothered to check out the sites I suggested and are coming out of the blue at this because you think I am talking about photovoltaics I still wouldn't see a problem with investing billions in the technology to improve efficiencies and reduce even further the minor impacts, compared to hydrocarbon consumption, in the environment of solar electricity. After all we are going to be investing billions to scrape up the last of the easy petroleums, improve our efficiencies there, and clean up the ensuing environmental problems of that industry. What difference does it make where we do that investing, other than once we do develop solar electric, we can quit investing if we are so inclined.

[M.Dancer]

It is my impression that at present solar energy provides about a third of our residential energy.

That might be true on a southern commune......but not in Canada. That statement isn't 50% wrong or even 100% wrong....probably closer to 1000% wrong.

[White Doors]

mmmm.....

swaying breasts....

[speaker]

It is my impression that at present solar energy provides about a third of our residential energy.

That might be true on a southern commune......but not in Canada. That statement isn't 50% wrong or even 100% wrong....probably closer to 1000% wrong.

M.Dancer, I believe you are wrong, What percentage of your lighting is solar energy? On a year round basis what percentage of your heat is solar? There are even times in northern Canada when it get's to be too much. In the solar sites I pasted, the design work helps to improve the overall usage of solar energy up to the point of absorbing the solar energy for release to the outside when cooling is needed.

Part of the intent behind using solar energy in buildings is to minimize the need for additional energy, so conservation and efficiency standards are constantly being improved. This helps to make solar energy a larger part of a buildings total supply.

[M.Dancer]

You say at present, 33% of our energy is solar.

How much solar energy, at present is used to cool our homes in summer, how much is used to heat our homes in winter?

I don't know about you, but my buddies cabin lost power this february and the sun did not prevent the pipes from bursting.....

...I know where you are going, but passive solar light does not provide 33% of our residential energy needs.

[speaker]

You say at present, 33% of our energy is solar.

How much solar energy, at present is used to cool our homes in summer, how much is used to heat our homes in winter?

I don't know about you, but my buddies cabin lost power this february and the sun did not prevent the pipes from bursting.....

...I know where you are going, but passive solar light does not provide 33% of our residential energy needs.

How much solar energy is used to heat our residential sector at present, winter, spring, summer, and fall? I don't expect that your buddies cabin has been designed to maximize the benefit from the sun. Perhaps if it had, and if he had a small standby generator to keep an air flow going, the pipes might have been saved.

I referenced those sites that look at developing technology in solar energy to point out that there doesn't need to be a whole lot of investment to develop sun power, and only incremental effort to improve it's performance in our existing and new buildings.

[M.Dancer]

How much solar energy is used to heat our residential sector at present, winter, spring, summer, and fall? I don't expect that your buddies cabin has been designed to maximize the benefit from the sun. Perhaps if it had, and if he had a small standby generator to keep an air flow going, the pipes might have been saved.

I referenced those sites that look at developing technology in solar energy to point out that there doesn't need to be a whole lot of investment to develop sun power, and only incremental effort to improve it's performance in our existing and new buildings.

yes but you said at present....at present millions of homes aren't maximised to to benefits from the sun. At presents 10s of thousand of homes are in areas where there are less tha 5 hours of sunlight a day during the winter......

[ScottSA]

I'm all for solar energy, but it isn't going to replace FF energy anytime soon, and those who think so-called "clean" energy is available on the scale we need it are fooling themselves. Passive solar energy might help a bit with warming, but it's not going to light the stove, run the car, irrigate the crops or do the million and one things it can't do.

[speaker]

How much solar energy is used to heat our residential sector at present, winter, spring, summer, and fall? I don't expect that your buddies cabin has been designed to maximize the benefit from the sun. Perhaps if it had, and if he had a small standby generator to keep an air flow going, the pipes might have been saved.

I referenced those sites that look at developing technology in solar energy to point out that there doesn't need to be a whole lot of investment to develop sun power, and only incremental effort to improve it's performance in our existing and new buildings.

yes but you said at present....at present millions of homes aren't maximised to to benefits from the sun. At presents 10s of thousand of homes are in areas where there are less tha 5 hours of sunlight a day during the winter......

M.Dancer, The point I guess is that we take our existing benefit from solar energy for granted and yet we have a hard time accepting that human innovation can improve our usage of this benefit. In this area where we have relatively small amounts of winter sunshine all of our summer heat is solar, and on those days when the winter sun is low and shining straight in our windows there is a measurable impact. And we are not optimally designed by any means.

ScottSA, There actually are solar ovens, and active solar installations that pump water for irrigation, but it is a fairly safe bet to say that it isn't going to do what it can't do. Part of a good passive solar design is minimizing what you term our "need" for energy through efficiency and conservation measures. I think it's a good point and we need a similar system of design for transportation, agriculture and resource recovery in general, as well as manufacturing and retail etc.

If we can not blow our energy out through our ....... , and instead focus on using it intelligently then perhaps solar electric, wind power, tidal, wave, geothermal, developments can also be rationalized so that we don't have to blow the grandkids inheritance getting it to work properly this time.

[ScottSA]

If we can not blow our energy out through our ....... , and instead focus on using it intelligently then perhaps solar electric, wind power, tidal, wave, geothermal, developments can also be rationalized so that we don't have to blow the grandkids inheritance getting it to work properly this time.

If we were to leap through the streets flinging energy hither and yon in grand displays of lightning bolts serving no other purpose but that they look pretty, we'd not be changing our grandkid's inheritance one iota. There is more than enough energy on this planet and in the solar system for them and their grandkids and their grandkid's grandkids and so on till the sun explodes in supernova. Fossil fuels were cheap, available and usable because technology perfected their use. Now other types of energy will be exploited by the technology that will build upon the fossil fuel revolution. I really don't know what all the fuss is about. Nothing we do will destroy the planet unless we set out to destroy the planet with big hairy bombs. Nor is the planet going to melt in some idiotic global inferno warming fairy tale. Angsting over it is about as ultimately productive as angsting over nuclear winter or widespread love canalism. Been there, did that, cleaned it up.

[B. Max]

Nothing we do will destroy the planet unless we set out to destroy the planet with big hairy bombs. Nor is the planet going to melt in some idiotic global inferno warming fairy tale. Angsting over it is about as ultimately productive as angsting over nuclear winter or widespread love canalism. Been there, did that, cleaned it up.

I agree, but we can certainly destroy the economy. I also agree with this.

The objective of the environmental movement is and always has been simply the destruction of energy production. Its further goal is the undoing of the Industrial Revolution and the return of the modern world to the poverty and misery of the pre-Industrial era.

http://georgereisman.com/blog/index.html

[speaker]

ScottSA

Maybe you're talking about the energy being the inheritance, I'm simply talking about the money we are spending while we use so much more energy than we need to. It seems odd to me that people believe that with the cost of energy constantly going up and the gas price impact of new projects being subsidized by government so many people blithely continue believing that waste is good for the economy. I'm afraid your scenarios of destroying the earth and having it melt in a global warming inferno are your fairy tales. If that is where you prefer to live it's not for me to criticize.

The point is that fossil fuels are no longer cheap and by all indications, ie heavy oil extraction costs, cleaner coal costs, drilling deeper for oil and gas, fossil fuels are already more expensive even than we recognize. Certainly as it becomes more expensive it will price itself out of the market, other alternatives will look better in comparison but will not be cheap. We'll be spending more and probably be getting less. Not good for the economy and not good for the grandkids.

[speaker]

I agree, but we can certainly destroy the economy. I also agree with this.

The objective of the environmental movement is and always has been simply the destruction of energy production. Its further goal is the undoing of the Industrial Revolution and the return of the modern world to the poverty and misery of the pre-Industrial era.

http://georgereisman.com/blog/index.html

Boys oh boys, another gooder. georgeriesman eh? quite the guy. capitalist, you think? lolol.

If I am in the mood for making sweeping generalizations about a group of people I think first and maybe have a closer look because sweeping generalizations are always wrong.

[B. Max]

Boys oh boys, another gooder. georgeriesman eh? quite the guy. capitalist, you think? lolol.

If I am in the mood for making sweeping generalizations about a group of people I think first and maybe have a closer look because sweeping generalizations are always wrong.

Well lets say, the leaders and 20%. Then there are, say around 20% that are actually duped into thinking that the world can be saved by conjuring up energy with what amounts to perpetual motion machines. Add another 20% who are nothing but Marxists looking for a way to get power by getting control of production. Another 20% who like the idea of transferring wealth to the failed third world backwaters of the world, and another 20% who are completely clueless and go along for the ride. But it doesn't matter how it's sliced, it still collectively destroys our economy

[ScottSA]

If I am in the mood for making sweeping generalizations about a group of people I think first and maybe have a closer look because sweeping generalizations are always wrong.

Well, they may be always wrong, but they are also mostly right.

[speaker]

If I am in the mood for making sweeping generalizations about a group of people I think first and maybe have a closer look because sweeping generalizations are always wrong.

Well, they may be always wrong, but they are also mostly right.

lol right on,,,,, so, I have on occasion been accused of being an Environmentalist, It seems to me that it would be better to ask one of them what their intent is rather than take the word of someone who probably has never been so accused.